FRAUD ALLEGED.

Hokitika Guardian, 26 February 1924, Page 4

FRAUD ALLEGED.

FLOOR-POLLSfI BUSINESS. BOUGHT FOR £SO—SOLD FOR £550 WELLINGTON. Feb. 28. ‘‘When a man buys a business for £SO, sells it for £550, gets it back again a year inter for £3l, and then re-sells it the following year for £SOO. the genuineness of the transaction is open to the greatest suspicion,” declared Mr . C. Alazengarb. when opening a case in the Supreme Court yesterday. “The first sale was for eleven times its cost. The ftveond sale shows a profit of 1500 per cent., or nearly .seventeen times the cost. . . Such a wonderful achievement is attributable either to miraculous skill in sale.smauship or else to iraud. . . Ac allege fraud !”

The case was one iii which Ktlga; Mansell, plaintiff, sued Frederick Williams Yare for return of £SOO. am damages for alleged -misrepresentation l in connection with the sale of a bust

The plaintiff was represented by Mr O. (: Alazeugnrb. Mr 11. F. G Leary appeared for the defendant. the action was heard before Mr Justice MacGregor and a iury of twelve. “WELL WORTH £750.” The statement- of claim of ilm plaintiff was. to the effect that, in October of last year, the defendant offered lo sell a. certain manufacturing business wi Wellington known as the “Vnrnola Polish Company.” The plaintiff entered into negut iathms for its purchase. it was alleged Hint the defendant verbally represented that Gw monthly turnover ol dm business averaged over £100: that the trad--names under which the products had been sold, known as "‘\ amnia and “Elae-it.” were both registered; that tlie business was well worth Ami!; that the defendant had already rel iced from another person who bad answered a newspaper advertisement an offer of £11.020 for the Australian rights ot “\ amnia had alrem!-. been refused. PURCHASE REPUDIATED. The plaintiff, it was said, relying on these representations, had paid iedH as purchase price, ft was submitted that these representations were allegedly false, or in part false, and that the defendant was well aware as to the unsuitability of the business for the plaintiff. The latter, on discovering that the representations were allegedly false, had repudiated the purchase. '[’lie return of the £sl Hi was claimed, and £lO as damages. A GENERA I- DENTAL. The allegations of the plaintiff acre denied in the statement i defence. Tim defendant denied thai he was in any way guilty of fraud in . on-i mn with the sale of the business. hi such, matters, in which he had expressed Ins opinion, it- hail been given in good faith, and it was in no nay iniemb’d to deceive the plain! ill. BUSINESS BY ’RHONE. The plaintiff, who is a shop assistant. employed in Wellington, stated in evidence thai lie had answered an advertisement in the evening newspaper, and in consequence Gm dcl-.-ndant had called to see him. Tie had be, n told that it was a. floor polish business, well established among Gm wholesale liou.-c-s. The defendant had described himself as all a.-1-01111 la nr. and said there were two ellmr people alter the business. At. a suim a; net; 1 meeting, the witness was informed thu> Gw trade-mark or the business had hem, veil registered throughout New Zealand . Ihe t urn-oyer had. i-- -. 1 : re - ei! at for one month and o-.vt £IOO ter another month. it was unm-rc---ary to p, on I-due for the bir-itm-., said Gte defendant, as he got it all by ’phew- Tim sum of £stX> iu cash was ! wanted for the business, though it was well worth £755. The defendant had stated that, others were after it. He also said that. £ll.-o',',) had been refused for tho rights of “Yarn,,la” in A ustralia.